Posted on 09/05/2013 9:40:20 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Ten months after Mitt Romney shuffled off the national stage in defeat — consigned, many predicted, to a fate of instant irrelevance and permanent obscurity — Republicans are suddenly celebrating the presidential also-ran as a political prophet.
From his widely mocked warnings about a hostile Russia to his adamant opposition to the increasingly unpopular implementation of Obamacare, the ex-candidate’s canon of campaign rhetoric now offers cause for vindication — and remorse — to Romney’s friends, supporters, and former advisers.
“I think about the campaign every single day, and what a shame it is who we have in the White House,” said Spencer Zwick, who worked as Romney’s finance director and is a close friend to his family. “I look at things happening and I say, you know what? Mitt was actually right when he talked about Russia, and he was actually right when he talked about how hard it was going to be to implement Obamacare, and he was actually right when he talked about the economy. I think there are a lot of everyday Americans who are now feeling the effects of what [Romney] said was going to happen, unfortunately.”
Of course, there is a long tradition in American politics of dwelling on counterfactuals and and re-litigating past campaigns after your candidate loses. Democrats have argued through the years that America would have avoided two costly Middle East wars, solved climate change, and steered clear of the housing crisis if only the Supreme Court hadn’t robbed Al Gore of his rightful victory in 2000. But a series of White House controversies and international crises this year — including a Syrian civil war that is threatening to pull the American military into the mix — has caused Romney’s fans to erupt into a chorus of told-you-so’s at record pace.
In the most actively cited example of the Republican nominee’s foresight, Romneyites point to the candidate’s hardline rhetoric last year against Russian President Vladimir Putin and his administration. During the campaign, Romney frequently criticized Obama for foolishly attempting to make common cause with the Kremlin, and repeatedly referred to Russia as “our number one geopolitical foe.”
Many observers found this fixation strange, and Democrats tried to turn it into a punchline. A New York Times editorial in March of last year said Romney’s assertions regarding Russia represented either “a shocking lack of knowledge about international affairs or just craven politics.” And in an October debate, Obama sarcastically mocked his opponent’s Russia rhetoric. “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years,” the president quipped at the time.
That line still chafes Robert O’Brien, a Los Angeles lawyer and friend of Romney’s who served as a foreign policy adviser.
“Everyone thought, Oh my goodness that is so clever and Mitt’s caught in the Cold War and doesn’t know what he’s talking about,” O’Brien said. “Well guess what. With all of these foreign policy initiatives — Syria, Iran, [Edward] Snowden — who’s out there causing problems for America? It’s Putin and the Russians.”
Indeed, earlier this summer, Moscow defiantly refused to extradite National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden to the United States, prompting Obama to cancel a meeting he had scheduled with Putin during the Group of 20 summit. Russia has blocked United Nations action against Syria. And on Wednesday, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told lawmakers that Russia was one of the countries supplying Syria with chemical weapons.
To Romney’s fans, these episodes illustrate just how unfairly their candidate was punished during the election for speaking truths the rest of the country would eventually come around to.
“The governor tried to enunciate how to deal with these very hard, tough issues, and we were met with slogans,” O’Brian lamented. “And now the real world is exposing the slogans as being totally trite.”
Admirers point to other examples of Romney’s unrewarded wisdom, as well.
During a foreign policy debate in October, the candidate briefly expressed concern over Islamic extremists taking control of northern Mali — an obscure reference that was mocked on Twitter at the time, including by liberal comedian Bill Maher. Three months later, France sent troops into the country at the behest of the Malian president, bringing the conflict to front pages around the world.
On the domestic front, Obamacare — which Romney spent more time railing against on the stump than perhaps any other progressive policy — is less popular than ever, while the federal government struggles to get the massive, complicated law implemented. (One poll in July found for the first time that a plurality of Americans now support the law’s repeal.)
And while the unemployment rate has, in the first year of Obama’s second term, gradually fallen to post-crisis lows, the still-ailing U.S. economy, which served as the centerpiece for Romney’s unsuccessful case against Obama’s reelection, was given a potent symbol earlier this summer when Detroit became the largest American city ever to declare bankruptcy.
The Motor City became a symbolic battleground during the election, with Romney proudly touting his father’s ties to the auto industry, and the Obama campaign relentlessly attacking the Republican for a Times op-ed he had written years earlier headlined “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt.”
“The president took the title of that op-ed, which of course was written by editors of the New York Times, and used it to say Gov. Romney was being insensitive about his own home city,” complained former campaign spokesman Ryan Williams. Romney’s article argued that beleaguered automakers should consider going through a managed bankruptcy instead of taking a bailout but, Williams said, “the president’s campaign intentionally tried to blur the lines. It worked. And several months later, the city is going bankrupt because of liberal democratic officeholders.”
Referring to the bankruptcy, Putin’s posturing, and the Mali conflict, Williams added, “Obviously, it would have been nice if any of these incidents would have occurred during the campaign to vindicate Romney. You would never want to see the bankruptcy of a major U.S. city, or the president embarrass himself on the world stage like he has, but Gov. Romney did discuss these potential outcomes.”
Romneyites are processing these feelings of vindication in different ways. The campaign’s chief strategist, Stuart Stevens, said he has been disappointed to see their central message — that Obama would be unable to restore America’s strength — turned out to be so accurate: “If there is a part of the world in which America is stronger, it’s hard to find. What’s the president doing? Attacking a talk radio host. He has criticized Rush Limbaugh with more conviction than the leaders of Iran… We can only hope it improves. ”
And Jennifer Rubin, the conservative Washington Post blogger who became Romney’s most outspoken advocate in the press, accused members of the news media of failing to take the Republican’s arguments seriously, while allowing the incumbent skate through the race untouched.
“As for the media, they are the least self-reflective people I know,” Rubin said. “The left-leaning media has carried the president’s water faithfully, eschewing the least bit of critical analysis. Now they don’t like the result?”
For Zwick, perhaps the closest thing to a true Romney loyalist on the campaign last year, the belief that his candidate turned out to be right offers little comfort. “It’s frustrating because there’s no way to correct it,” Zwick said. “We don’t do what they do in the U.K. and lead the opposition party when you lose. When you lose there is no way to sort of be vindicated. There’s no way to say, ‘OK, well, I didn’t win the presidency but I’m going to continue to fight.’ There’s no fighting. There’s no platform to do that. Fifty million Americans voted for the guy and yet it’s all for nothing.”
“I wish he’d run again,” Zwick added. “He’s not going to. But if he did, I’d be right there.”
Just explain to me how I deserved to be saddled with Obama for another term? And look where we are — about to be plunged into WWII and bankrupted, unemployed, and death paneled by Obamacare.
Your high and mighty 3rd party stance is just stupid. Look where it has gotten Raoph Nader and Ross Perot. It is just the folly of dilletantes.
If he was wrong about absolutely everything, he’d still be a better president than the guy we got now.
I didn’t mention a 3rd party.
I would no more vote for a lefty Republican than a lefty Democrat.
Yet, you are so eager to attach "blame" to many other FReepers for Romney's loss whether or not they may or may not have voted for the liberal in RINO clothing?
Sheesh, talk about a disconnect.
In some states, it absolutely DID NOT matter whether one voted for the 0assclown or Romney or Mickey Mouse. It was a "done deal".
Quit projecting blame onto other FReepers for the results of an election that for all appearances was fraught with fraud and an electorate that relishes feeding at the trough.
Get over it...your constant projection of "blame" is divisive, of no value and serves no valid purpose other than to split FReepers along social lines.
Lots of Conservatives in this country grew a pair or a spine and made conscious decisions to stand firm in their values, morals and beliefs and stayed home. I won't stand in judgement of any person who did so. Their conscience led them.
In some states, like mine, it was like spitting into the wind anyway...
In your case, “lemming” is the animal that comes to my mind.
You post #71 confirmed what I said.
Sorry, but it is true, Romney did implement what the legislature would not. Romney instituted same sex marriage in Massachusetts. The courts told the legislature to do it but they were too afraid touch it. Even though no one (neither the courts nor the legislature) told Romney he had to do so, he ordered the clerks of the court to issue marriage licenses.
Since he’s the one who did it, Romney’s the one who is responsible.
Now did he actually officiate at a gay wedding? That I don’t know anything about.
But did he choose two gays raising a child to be celebrated as parents of the year? Yes, he did.
I had in mind the mascot of the Democrat Party for you.
This is Funny! Didn’t anyone else watch the debate on Foreign Policy? Mitt basically agreed with Obama on everything.
Oh, so YOU can make assumptions of other's votes, and cast blame on them, but deny that to others?
Sorry, but it is true, Romney did implement what the legislature would not. Romney instituted same sex marriage in Massachusetts. The courts told the legislature to do it but they were too afraid touch it. Even though no one (neither the courts nor the legislature) told Romney he had to do so, he ordered the clerks of the court to issue marriage licenses.That's exactly how it played out, and what was really sad and aggravating about that sorry episode in the history of Romney is that what he did was both illegal and unconstitutional as the Massachusetts constitution expressly states that all matters concerning marriage are to originate in the Legislature, and this issue did not.
Stupidity is, again, on YOUR side with regard to "Look where 3rd party got Nader and Perot." HELLO? Because of the third party split both times Clinton got the WH, Clinton was opposed by the majority of American voters, and it was on record for the world to see. AS A RESULT of that very clearly documented lack of popular support, Clinton was steamrolled by the then more-or-less limited-government Republican Revolution in his first term, and he was IMPEACHED during his second term. Neither of those things would have happened if Clinton had won with a majority OR if the Republican opponent had won. Your so-called "folly of dilletantes" served to weaken government tyranny.
Your guy Romney has ONLY EVER served to increase government tyranny. You can vote for more government tyranny and rationalize it any way you want, but your "solution" was as destructive as the problem.
Thinking it through, on the other hand, leads to a smarter and more accurate conclusion.
You do know that he gave free cars and car insurance to welfare recipients in Massachusetts don’t you? He also gave out $50.00 or free abortions.
Every time someone comes up with the he would have helped the economy garbage, all I can see is that we would already have amnesty if he had won. Maybe it’s just me but, I don’t quite imagine free cars for welfare recipients and massive immigration would help the economy one bit. Perhaps Romney believes that immigration is supposed to take the place of all the dead babies from the $50.00 or free abortions.
The other people on this thread claimed that they did NOT support Romney. That’s very different from assuming how I voted in our Wisconsin primary which didn’t mean anything because it is so late in the cycle.
I don’t remember how I voted for Santorum — whether he was still listed on the ballot, or whether I had to write in his name. I just remember that I did vote for him, but I supported Romney after he earned the nomination. Mostly because of Ryan. Obama is SO bad. We just couldn’t afford another term of O. And I was right about that.
The whiners on FR who have b****ed and complained about Romney for years gave us that 2nd term of Obama, either overtly (by voting for him) or covertly (by voting for another and discouraging support for Romney).
It a moot point, however. But I see it starting all over again with the current crop of candidates. Nobody is good enough. Sometimes I think these whiners are DU plants.
Yes, I knew somehow that you did. You are as predictable as you are short-sighted.
Rush Limbaugh shot the GOP in the foot with that one. Instead of commenting on what Fluke actually said, he riffed on an news article that misrepresented a tiny part of her speech, and, doing so, made his 'slut' comment the issue.
Most people, including most people on FR, don't realize Fluke didn't talk about her sex life at all, but told the stories of five other women.
Most of those stories were ridiculous - like the rape victim who didn't go to get an STD test because she assumed nothing involving her lady parts was covered by insurance because contraception wasn't.
We could have won that issue if we'd addressed what Fluke actually said instead of being blown off course by Limbaugh's blather.
OUCH! That's gonna leave a mark! Well said, and a tragedy that it is being said at all. The older I get, the more avidly I believe that abortion is a ghastly abomination, as is "normalzing" the homosexual agenda among children. I view both as EQUALLY horrifically abominable: when government nourishes those moral evils, it is nourishing paths to horrible soul-wracking sin. The aborted baby is murdered, yes, but I believe God then embraces that innocent's soul.
No, the woman who aborted, the doctor who performed the abortion, like the homosexual adult who defends and promotes his/her perversions among children and those innocent children who are then drawn into the perversion, are the real souls in trouble. That we VOTE FOR a government that promotes such moral strife and misery is ... well, a case of morality determining destiny.
I praise God that Americans were moral enough to refuse to pay such a price just to get rid of Obama. While it may not appear so right now, our destiny is BETTER OFF for it.
It’s a little late to be realizing this now. Last Nov 6 and before was the time to vote 0bomber out.
With Romney in the WH, we wouldn’t be favorably comparing the bare-chested Vlad over our own POTUS.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.